Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 255 posts

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#241

Post by ape4 »

lev99 wrote: post #44
ape4 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Icons are good. But would be even better if they were switches the user can turn off/on.

That sounds like a GPL loophole to me. It would be much easier to extend and replace if someone could turn off the condition " You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." [0] I'm all for making these easier to read, but they sho…

I agree you should not be able to change a software license but if Facebook had an icon for each thing they did like: [share with 3rd party] [sell your info] ...

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#242

Post by TheCoelacanth »

imglorp wrote: post #141
anoncoward1234 wrote: post #98

Seems to me this is easily fixed. If a jury of peers cannot understand the legal contract during an arbitration, rule in favor of the signor of the contract and against the writer. You'll see that shit disappear with a quickness.

This is a great idea but I don't think it goes far enough. It means that 12 lay people can eventually, after some coaching, study, and debate, understand a contract. Or one lawyer, presumably. The problem remains though, that one lay person needs to understand it without study or coaching, and without taking days to do so. Most of us have probably clicked through hundreds or even thousands of EULAs and other crap wit…

The jury should get as much time to read the contract as the average user spends reading the contract and should not get the help of a lawyer. If the company doesn't collect data about how much time users spend reading the contract, then it should be presumed that they didn't read it at all and then only terms that the jury can guess would be in the contract without reading it should be valid.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#243

Post by throwawayjava »

x0x0 wrote: post #208
throwawayjava wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FB is doing their absolute best to make sure no "user" understands what they have agreed to* But before making this argument, one should go read FB's ToS and data policy. Here they are: https://www.facebook.com/terms.php https://www.facebook.com/policy.php

Where, precisely, is the bit where they steal data from my phone about sms and phone calls?

> Where, precisely...

Right here, clear as day: "We collect information from or about the computers, phones, or other devices where you install or access our Services, depending on the permissions you’ve granted"

Also notice that if they have that data, you explicitly gave permission to access phone/SMS data in the app install process; i.e., you granted those permissions.

> ...steal...

Again, that's the problem! Facebook didn't STEAL that data. They took it with your permission. And they were actually very clear in their policies about the fact that they could take pretty much anything you gave them device premissions to access.

This is NOT a "users can't understand legalese" issue. It's very clear from the above sentence in the data policy that Facebook has the right to record arbitrary shit off of your phone/computer.

This IS a "users don't care and don't have any data clawback rights" issue. Or perhaps a "users are too trusting" issue. But any high schooler could interpret the above sentence as meaning that Facebook does, technically, have the right to collect any information from your phone if you give device permissions.

The distinction is important because it determines appropriate solutions. The solution is NOT making ToS easier to read. The solution is stronger consumer data rights (aka a mechanism to clawback data after the fact) and better consumer education (aka be paranoid)

If you think that merely making ToS easier to read and understand will substantially change consumer behavior, you're in for lots of disappointment.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#244

Post by throwawayjava »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #207
throwawayjava wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is that one is expected to consent and be beholden to something they could not reasonably understand without paying a large amount of money to a specialist. I've found that this is generally less true than I imagine it to be. A lot of law is not actually so difficult to understand. Legalese is still English, and Google is great for figuring out the odd meanings of certain terms of art. Most of the ex…

I wonder if it would be possible to create an AI that, given a legalese text, could output comments for each fragment explaining and showing examples of what it means. Now that I think about it, wasn't genius.com doing something like that but using crowdsourcing instead?

Privacy policies actually use this as a rhetorical trick to confuse users. E.g., they'll say stuff like "we may collect any device information you give permissions to access to do [reasonable thing A], [reasonable thing B], or for any other business purposes. Examples of device information include: [insert list of benign things]"

Or, to put emphasis on the important things:

"we may (read: WILL) collect ANY device information you give permissions to access to do [reasonable thing A], [reasonable thing B], or for ANY other business purposes. Examples of device information include: [insert list of benign things you should totally ignore]"

But here's the problem with the "AI tell us all" approach. If you use ML to mine examples from existing policy texts, you'll end up showing the user all of the benign stuff that the companies put in to reassure users, because that's what the corpus contains. Therefore, your AI will emphasize exactly the wrong types of examples.

Also, notice that this isn't even a legalese thing. There are no legal terms of art or long-winding difficult grammatical constructions. It's just plain old good rhetoric. And it's hard/impossible to legislate away persuasion.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#246

Post by dhimes »

Retra wrote: post #204
dhimes wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If the precision of the language of law was working we wouldn't need to fight over it in court. Our new tax code hadn't been read by anyone who passed it- and, as an accountant explained to me long ago- we won't know exactly what it means until we get to court. Even if a reset is unsustainably simple, it's time for one.

Even if the law worked mechanically, we still need to argue it in court, since the law cannot encode the complexity of the real world anyway. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to break laws, so long as they have sufficient justification for doing so. For instance, you won't be guilty of violating a law if you are coerced to do so, and the court still needs to evaluate what level of coercion you underwent, and th…

The problem is when it gets complex it redefines what should be the easy cases.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#247

Post by mieseratte »

kbenson wrote: post #102
mieseratte wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? The difference is that one is expected to consent and be beholden to something they could not reasonably understand without paying a large amount of money to a specialist. That I write my code in brainfuck is of no consequence to someone, unless that brainfuck is potentially going to incarcerate them.

> That I write my code in brainfuck is of no consequence to someone, unless that brainfuck is potentially going to incarcerate them. If you write software to control medical equipment in Brainfuck, it's potentially of consequence to a great many people. Same for autonomous driving routines. Trying to make things clearer is a good cause. Expecting that everything can be made clear enough for the average person is a fo…

> The law is no different. There's a core set of things people are aware of. As things become more specific, or a problem happens, we call in domain experts to help.

Using Brainfuck is an extreme example but you're taking it to its logical conclusion - off a cliff.

The difference is, the law affects and is applied to everyone. Contracts can and do affect the average person. However, only a domain expert has do deal in code.

We do not expect or require a normal person to read a 5,000 LOC piece of software, or risk giving up rights to participate in everyday society.

> Expecting everyone to be able to read all of the legal code will never happen, nor should it happen. It's expecting too much out of the average person, and would also require the law be dumbed down in ways that were detrimental to it's interpretation.

I'm certain we can put together a reasonable "tl;dr" requirement for contracts targeted at the layman, e.g.

"""

- You may use this application (See: Section A)

- You will pay X per month (See: Section B)

- Late fees may apply (See: Section B, Sub-Section 2)

- We may collect user data (See: Section C)

- We may sell user data (See: Section D)

- We reserve the right to update the terms of the service (See: Section E, Sub-Section 1)

- We reserve the right to cancel service for any reason (See: Section E, Sub-Section 2)

"""

Make the tl;dr non-binding so long as a reasonable person, a typical legal standard, would understand the legalese to have the outcome.

One need not write a "literate contact," nor abandon all of our legal history, terms of art, etc. to improve things to make them more approachable for a normal user.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#249

Post by x0x0 »

throwawayjava wrote: post #243
x0x0 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where, precisely, is the bit where they steal data from my phone about sms and phone calls?

> Where, precisely... Right here, clear as day: "We collect information from or about the computers, phones, or other devices where you install or access our Services, depending on the permissions you’ve granted" Also notice that if they have that data, you explicitly gave permission to access phone/SMS data in the app install process; i.e., you granted those permissions. > ...steal... Again, that's the problem! Face…

No, it's not clear at all, and wasn't clear to virtually anyone who agreed to it.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#250

Post by hansthehorse »

hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #224
lovich wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know, we can't just throw out the concept of a contract with our current society and I don't think there would be a benefit in doing so. However mortgages are something that rarely have side effects surprise the signers. Terms of service seem to surprise the majority of individuals who agree to them, and as the poster above said, the idea that anyone agreeing to them understands what they agreed to is a fiction. Wh…

> However mortgages are something that rarely have side effects surprise the signers. I really don’t agree with this. Are you aware of the existence of adjustable rate mortgages?

I told the title company handling the closing of my first home, in 1982, that I wanted a copy of every document I'd be asked to sign 3 weeks before the closing date. They told me they had no process for doing that and they would look into it. From that day forward I never went into a real estate closing without a real estate lawyer.
Post reply on HN